Broadwater v. Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
REV. DR. JAMES BROADWATER, 	§
§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	Civil Action No. 4:26-cv-0329-P
§
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, 	§
§
Defendant. 	§
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff, Rev. Dr. James Broadwater, filed a civil case. ECF No. 1. 	Resolution of
preliminary matters was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to the provisions
of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Special Order No. 3. ECF No. 2. The findings, conclusions and
recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge are as follows:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:
A. 	NATURE OF THE CASE
This case is a new civil action.
B. 	PARTIES
Rev. Dr. James Broadwater is the Plaintiff and the Internal Revenue Service is named as
Defendant. See ECF No. 1.
C. 	LEGAL ANALYSIS
To proceed with a civil action in this Court, a plaintiff must either pay the $405 filing and
administrative fees or be granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). See 28 U.S.C. §§
Case 4:26-cv-00329-P Document 5 Filed 04/07/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

2
1914, 1915. Because Plaintiff had not paid the filing fee or sought permission to proceed in forma
pauperis, the Court ordered that he do so by April 3, 2026. ECF No. 4. The Court explicitly warned
Plaintiff that failure to timely comply with its order might result in dismissal of this case without
further notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Id. 	To date, Plaintiff has failed to
comply with the order.
Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a court to dismiss an action sua
sponte for failure to prosecute or follow orders of the court. McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d
1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988). This authority flows from a court’s inherent power to control its docket,
prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases, and avoid congested court calendars.
Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962). 	Because Plaintiff has failed to comply
with this Court’s Order and Notice of Deficiency, this case may be dismissed for failure to comply
with a Court order and for lack of prosecution under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
RECOMMENDATION
It is therefore RECOMMENDED that that all of Plaintiff’s claims be DISMISSED for
lack of prosecution, without prejudice to being refiled. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT TO PROPOSED
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
AND CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO OBJECT
A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all parties in the manner
provided by law. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), each party to this action has the right to serve and
file specific written objections in the United States District Court to the United States Magistrate
Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation within fourteen (14) days after the
party has been served with a copy of this document. The United States District Judge need only
make a de novo determination of those portions of the United States Magistrate Judge’s proposed
Case 4:26-cv-00329-P Document 5 Filed 04/07/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

3
findings, conclusions, and recommendation to which specific objection is timely made. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Failure to file by the date stated above a specific written objection to a
proposed factual finding or legal conclusion will bar a party, except upon grounds of plain error
or manifest injustice, from attacking on appeal any such proposed factual findings and legal
conclusions accepted by the United States District Judge. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto
Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428–29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1) (extending the deadline to file objections from ten to fourteen days).
ORDER
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff is granted until April 21, 2026 to
serve and file written objections to the United States Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings,
conclusions and recommendation.
It is further ORDERED that the above-styled and numbered action, previously referred to
the United States Magistrate Judge for findings, conclusions and recommendation, be and is
hereby, RETURNED to the docket of the United States District Judge.
SIGNED April 7, 2026.
___________________________________
JEFFREY L. CURETON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:26-cv-00329-P Document 5 Filed 04/07/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>